Evaluation Subcommittee Meeting - April 23, 1997

Present

Alguire, Duerson, Duff, Okun, Rooks, Romrell, Stevens, Small, Suter, Watson, Webb

Not Present

Lucas, VanSusteren

A copy of a draft report had been distributed the previous day. Parker Small opened the meeting indicating that he hoped we would accomplish the following:

1. Present the overall evaluation system
2. Discuss the issue of pass/fail
3. Address the recommendations
   

1. The Evaluation System

Parker presented a colorful diagram of how an ideal evaluation system should work. Some of the key elements are:

• the course/clerkship directors, the students, the teaching faculty, the Curriculum Committee, COMEC and the Sr. Associate Dean for Educational Affairs
• important are: the flow of data to the right individuals and groups, their analysis and interpretation, and action taken in response to the information. The attached diagram and its text description show the key players and the flow of information.
• As shown, critical elements are written reports, such as: (1) the dean's letter which will be based on data from PBE 1-4, student peer evaluation, and a GPA for the course and clerkship evaluations; (2) the C/C directors' report to the Curriculum Committee which will be used by the CC to develop a written evaluation of the C/C director; (3) a written report about the course or clerkship by the CC to the Sr. Associate Dean; (4) a written evaluation of the teaching faculty by the C/C director; and (5) an annual report by the CC to the Sr. Associate Dean and the general faculty.

2. Pass/Fail

The group agreed that a pass/fail system may be desirable but was not practical because it derail discussion of other improvements of our evaluations and, according to past experience, it is easily subverted by adding subcategories of passing. A solution that was proposed and approved in spirit is as follows: for the dean's letter the Associate Dean for Student Affairs will use: (1) the results of PBE 4; (2) the results of student peer evaluations; and (3) at the students option the GPA derived either from all three years or from the clerkships and Essentials of Patient Care only.

It was agreed that for the purpose of grading, the following weights are recommended:

3. Grading:

• PBE 1 10%
• PBE 2 20%
• PBE 3 30%
• PBE 4 40%

You will receive the revised report and a ballot this week. Based on your feedback, we will make additional revisions prior to the May 14 meeting.

For the next meeting, May 14, the following is planned:

1. Revised Evaluation Plan including a system description
2. Vote on the plan's recommendations
3. Strategy of implementation (priorities)